BIQ01 - What is the official name of your organisation/project (and any registration number if you have one, plus main contact, email address and phone number)?
P369 — OPEN DWP: Social Benefits. It is a PHC Community Assurance project administered through Order Efficiency Ltd, the contracting vehicle for PHC assignments. Project lead: David Winter. Formal project contact details and any sponsor-facing address remain to be confirmed.
BIQ02 - Are you registered (NGO / CBO / company / informal group)? If not, do you want to register?
P369 is a project rather than a separately registered organisation. Order Efficiency Ltd is the existing company vehicle through which a funded PHC team could be engaged. No decision has been made to create a separate charity, NGO, CBO or legal entity; the need should be reviewed after the pilot model and funding route are clearer.
BIQ03 - What location(s) do you operate in (town/county/region)? Any plans to expand?
The project is UK-focused because DWP and Universal Credit are UK systems. No operating location or host has yet been confirmed. The intended approach is to begin with one small, defined pilot and add UK locations only when local participation, safeguarding, funding and PHC capacity are credible. Comparable work outside the UK would require separate scope and local-system expertise.
BIQ04 - What problem are you solving in one sentence?
People's experience of social-benefit administration can disappear behind fragmented messages, repetitive tasks and closed cases without producing a coherent evidence base for individual understanding or system learning.
BIQ05 - What does "success" look like for you in 6 months and 12 months?
At six months, success would mean that governance, safeguarding, consent, data boundaries, funding and a deliberately small first pilot have been agreed and tested, with honest reporting of participation, barriers and failures as well as benefits. At twelve months, success would mean that the evidence justifies either controlled replication in additional UK locations or a documented decision not to scale. Cohort size and dates are not yet commitments.
BIQ06 - What is your biggest constraint right now (money / people / equipment / skills / trust / transport / time / other)?
The immediate constraint is not technology but a combination of funding, independent governance, safeguarding expertise, qualified participant support, a credible local referral/host relationship and limited PHC delivery capacity. Trust will depend on resolving these before recruitment.
BIQ07 - What are the top 3 priorities you want help with immediately?
The three immediate priorities are: (1) define the pilot boundary, participant pathway and safeguarding arrangements; (2) establish an independence and data-governance framework acceptable to participants, funders and public bodies; and (3) secure funding for a small pilot with measurable entry, review and stop/go criteria.
BIQ08 - What partners do you already work with (government, clinics, schools, NGOs, churches, local leaders)?
No delivery partnership or pilot host is currently confirmed. Prospective stakeholders include welfare-rights and community organisations, local authorities, independent safeguarding and evaluation advisers, responsible funders, and DWP as a respondent and potential user of learning rather than project controller. Named roles must not be presented as filled until written agreement exists.
BIQ09 - What systems do you currently use (paper notebook, WhatsApp, Excel, Google Drive, website, none)?
Current development uses PHC Port, including timechunks, CLAMPED records, Concern narratives, comments and reporting. Participants may also need phone, paper or supported-access routes. The final operating system, integrations and offline alternatives remain to be tested against accessibility, privacy and digital-exclusion requirements.
BIQ10 - Do you have permission/consent from people on your register to store/use their data for support services?
No participant register has yet been established for this pilot. No personal or case data should be collected until a plain-language consent process, lawful data basis, access rules, retention/deletion rules, safeguarding escalation and withdrawal procedure have been approved. Public contribution and research/evaluation consent must be separate choices.
PSQ01 - What service can you name, with brief description of each that will help the beneficiaries of your project?
The proposed minimum services are: supported personal activity and correspondence records; structured recording of barriers and next steps; maintained PHC Concerns; signposting to qualified welfare, legal, safeguarding or emergency support; anonymised project-level learning; and a documented right of reply for DWP and other named organisations.
PSQ02 - List your current services (what you do today), and for each: how often and for how many people per month?
No participant service is currently operating and no monthly caseload should be claimed. Current activity is project definition, platform development and review of the project lead's own documented experience as an initial case study, subject to explicit publication decisions.
PSQ03 - Which services are most needed but you cannot currently deliver?
The project cannot yet safely provide supported case recording at pilot scale, qualified welfare-rights advice, safeguarding response, independent evaluation or local assisted-digital access. PHC should not claim to deliver specialist advice unless appropriately qualified partners are engaged.
PSQ04 - What are the top 5 needs reported by beneficiaries of your project (health, safety, work, school, counselling, etc.)?
Beneficiary needs have not yet been established through a representative assessment. Working hypotheses include understandable communication, continuity of records, dignity, accessible human help and effective referral. These must be tested with participants and specialist organisations rather than treated as findings.
PSQ05 - What is the service pathway right now? (How does a person join → receive help → follow-up?)
Proposed pathway: informed referral or self-enquiry; eligibility and risk screening; plain-language consent; onboarding and support-needs assessment; voluntary recording and scheduled review; referral where issues exceed PHC scope; participant approval of identifiable material; closure or withdrawal; and follow-up/evaluation. Safeguarding and urgent-support routes must operate throughout.
PSQ06 - What makes your approach different from other organisations (if any)?
The distinctive feature is the continuously maintained relationship between participant activity, communications, barriers, decisions, actions and Concerns, rather than a one-off complaint or retrospective report. The difference must be demonstrated through pilot evidence; novelty alone is not proof of value.
PSQ07 - What "minimum service package" could you reliably deliver every month if basic funding existed?
The reliable minimum package has not yet been costed or capacity-tested. A prudent first package would serve a small number of consenting participants with onboarding, weekly record support, Concern maintenance, referral boundaries, monthly anonymised assurance reporting and a formal pilot review.
PSQ08 - What does a typical case look like from first contact to resolution?
A typical case is not yet known. The pilot must document several pathways, including straightforward completion, disengagement, referral to specialist help, safeguarding escalation, unresolved administrative closure and participant withdrawal. 'Resolution' should not be assumed to mean a favourable benefit decision.
PSQ09 - What are the risks/harm points in service delivery (stigma, security threats, exploitation, misinformation)?
Principal harm points include stigma, retaliation fears, accidental disclosure, distress from revisiting events, mistaken reliance on PHC instead of formal deadlines or qualified advice, digital exclusion, mentor overreach, biased selection, funder influence, public misinterpretation and unsafe handling of urgent or suicidal communications.
PSQ10 - How do you measure whether a service worked? (simple indicators)
Measures should include informed-consent quality, retention and withdrawal, completeness and usability of records, participant-reported clarity, timely referrals, response and correction rates, Concern status changes, adverse events, accessibility failures, staff/mentor workload and evidence of service learning. Payment outcomes alone would be misleading.
PSQ11 - What services could be delivered remotely (WhatsApp/phone) vs require physical presence?
Record support, scheduled reviews, mentoring and some training may be delivered by portal, telephone or video. Identity checks, accessibility support, safeguarding assessment and complex distress may require trusted local or face-to-face provision. WhatsApp should not be assumed suitable for sensitive case data.
PEQ01 - What equipment do you have? mobile phone? pc? printer? monitor? - list all you have.
Order Efficiency Ltd has ordinary computer and internet capability for project development, but a verified asset and capacity register has not been completed. Participant equipment cannot be assumed. Device ownership, accessibility tools and connectivity should be assessed during onboarding.
PEQ02 - How do we contact you? Telephone number? Office Address? Main Contact? Number of people in the management team? Number of people that the project will address?
Project lead: David Winter. Final public contact details, operating address, management-team size, delivery-team composition and first-pilot capacity remain to be confirmed. No participant number should be published until the staffing and safeguarding ratios support it.
PEQ03 - Where are you working from? Would the office address be your home? a community centre? an internet cafe?
Current project development is remote. No physical pilot base or community host has been agreed. A home address should not become the default public or participant-facing office without a privacy and safety assessment.
PEQ04 - What equipment is working reliably, and what is broken / missing / shared / borrowed?
PHC Port is available for development use. Reliability, user support, accessibility, security, backup and pilot-scale performance require documented testing. No participant device pool, printer, scanner or loan equipment is currently confirmed.
PEQ05 - How stable is your electricity and internet (daily / weekly outages)?
Core project development has ordinary UK electricity and internet access, but participant access will vary. The pilot must offer or refer to alternatives where connectivity, data cost, disability or lack of a suitable device prevents participation.
PEQ06 - Where is your data stored (paper files, phone, laptop)? Is there a backup?
Project data is intended to be held within access-controlled PHC systems with defined backups. The exact data inventory, hosting locations, processors, encryption, recovery testing, access logs, retention periods and deletion procedures must be documented before personal case data is accepted.
PEQ07 - Do you have a safe place to store sensitive records?
A safe physical and digital records arrangement has not yet been formally approved. Sensitive records should not be stored casually on personal phones, unencrypted laptops, shared drives or paper in an unlocked home environment.
PEQ08 - Do you have transport (walking, bicycle, motorbike, car, public)? Biggest travel barrier?
The project is currently remote and has no transport resource. Travel barriers and reasonable adjustments should be assessed individually if a local host introduces face-to-face activity.
PEQ09 - What are your printing/scanning options (none / pay-per-use shop / own printer)?
No project-wide printing or scanning provision is confirmed. The service should minimise document duplication and must not transfer scanning costs or technical burdens to participants without support.
PEQ10 - If you had a small "starter kit" (phone + laptop + printer), who would be responsible for it?
No starter-kit scheme is approved. If introduced, each asset would require a named custodian, inventory record, acceptable-use terms, data-wiping process, loss/damage procedure and a fair allocation policy.
PEQ11 - What does your workspace need to become functional (desk, chair, lockable cabinet, internet router, etc.)?
A functional operating base would require private conversations, secure devices and storage, reliable connectivity, accessibility, safe waiting/meeting arrangements and a clear separation from the project lead's private home. Requirements depend on the host model.
PEQ12 - What would be the ideal operating base in 6 months (home office / shared centre / rented office)?
The preferred six-month base is not yet decided. The likely minimum is a secure remote administration base supported by bookable space within a trusted community organisation for onboarding or assisted access. A rented office is not presently justified.
PEQ13 - What security risks exist at your premises (theft, harassment, privacy exposure)?
Risks include exposure of claimant identities, harassment following publication, theft or loss of devices, overheard conversations, insecure home working and unauthorised access by household or host personnel. A location-specific security and privacy assessment is required before operation.
PQ01 - Who are the key roles today (leader, admin, outreach, finance, volunteer coordinator)? Names + roles.
David Winter is the project lead and PHC originator. Order Efficiency Ltd is the proposed contracting/administrative vehicle. No funded pilot team, safeguarding lead, welfare-rights lead, data-protection lead, finance lead, local host lead or independent evaluator is yet confirmed.
PQ02 - How many are active weekly (not just "on the list")?
There is no active weekly delivery team or participant cohort at present. Development contribution should be recorded separately from future contracted pilot capacity.
PQ03 - What skills do you have in the team (counselling, healthcare links, social work, advocacy, fundraising, admin, IT)?
Current strengths include PHC methodology, project risk and assurance, structured evidence, reporting, platform development and project governance. Claimed competence must not be extended to welfare-rights advice, counselling, social work, clinical care, legal representation or safeguarding response without qualified people.
PQ04 - What skills are missing that you need most urgently?
Urgent gaps include qualified safeguarding, welfare-rights/benefits expertise, trauma-aware participant support, data protection, accessibility and inclusion, independent evaluation, local referral knowledge and funded operational administration.
PQ05 - What training would help most (basic safeguarding, data handling, case management, fundraising, reporting)?
Priority training includes safeguarding and escalation, suicide/distress response boundaries, data protection, informed consent, benefits-advice boundaries, accessibility, trauma-aware communication, evidence quality, conflicts of interest and safe public reporting.
PQ06 - How do you recruit and manage volunteers (screening, agreements, supervision)?
No volunteer recruitment process is yet approved. It should include role descriptions, application and identity checks proportionate to risk, references or vetting where appropriate, confidentiality, conflicts declarations, training, supervised probation, workload limits, complaints and removal procedures.
PQ07 - Do you have a safeguarding lead / safeguarding rules? If not, who could be assigned?
No safeguarding lead or approved safeguarding framework is currently in place. Participant recruitment must not begin until an appropriately competent lead, policy, referral map, emergency protocol and incident-recording process are established.
PQ08 - What is your communication rhythm (weekly meeting, WhatsApp group, ad-hoc)?
The operating rhythm is to be designed. A likely pilot rhythm is participant-controlled logging, scheduled weekly support, weekly delivery review, immediate escalation for defined risks, monthly assurance reporting and a formal pilot gate review.
PQ09 - What conflicts or workload risks exist (burnout, role confusion, disagreements)?
Risks include founder dependence, blurred mentor/adviser roles, emotional overload, excessive caseload, volunteer exploitation, disagreement about publication, conflicts between participant wishes and public-interest reporting, funder pressure and hostility from organisations under scrutiny.
PQ10 - If funding arrived, which 3 positions would you pay first (and why)?
The first funded roles should address safety and credibility: a competent safeguarding/participant-support lead, a welfare-rights or referral-boundary specialist, and a delivery/data administrator. Exact employment or consultancy arrangements depend on scope and budget.
FQ01 - Do you have any current income (donations, grants, sales, membership, events)? Rough monthly average.
No dedicated P369 income, grant, donation or sponsor commitment is currently confirmed. Any PHC development contribution already made should not be represented as external project revenue.
FQ02 - What are your fixed monthly costs (rent, airtime, transport, printing, internet)?
A verified monthly cost base has not yet been prepared. It should distinguish shared PHC platform overhead from pilot-specific staff, safeguarding, insurance, hosting, communications, accessibility, travel, evaluation and participant-support costs.
FQ03 - What costs are unpredictable emergencies (medical cases, relocation, safety incidents)?
Potential contingencies include safeguarding incidents, urgent specialist referral, legal/data-protection advice, security response, replacement devices, accessibility support, travel, interpretation and support following distress. PHC should not create an unfunded emergency-aid promise.
FQ04 - What are the top 10 things you spend money on when you have it?
No spending history exists for an operating pilot. Proposed expenditure priorities must be derived from the minimum safe service, not an aspirational list, and approved against scope, procurement and conflict-of-interest controls.
FQ05 - Do you keep records (cashbook, receipts, mobile money statements)? Who holds them?
Order Efficiency Ltd would maintain project financial records if contracted, including invoices, receipts and an auditable project ledger. Sponsor reporting, approval limits, segregation of duties and treatment of contributed time remain to be defined.
FQ06 - Do you have, or intend to open, a bank/mobile money account in the organisation name? If not, what do you use?
P369 does not currently have a separate organisational bank account because it is not a separate legal entity. Contracted funds would normally pass through the nominated contracting entity under a project-specific budget and controls.
FQ07 - What is the smallest funding amount that would make a real difference this month?
The smallest useful amount cannot be stated responsibly until a costed 7-Day Review or equivalent definition stage identifies a safe minimum pilot. Accepting a token sum that triggers participant-facing obligations without funding safeguards and support would increase risk.
FQ08 - What is your 12-month "ideal budget" (even if rough)?
No defensible twelve-month ideal budget exists yet. It should be built from pilot size, staffing ratios, location, participant access needs, safeguarding, specialist support, evaluation and platform costs, with explicit contingency and overhead assumptions.
FQ09 - What funding have you tried before (who, when, result)?
No confirmed P369 funding applications or prior donor decisions are recorded in this seed report. Outreach ideas are not funding attempts and should be logged separately from submitted proposals and decisions.
FQ10 - What would you consider "good governance proof" to show donors money is safe (reports, receipts, photos, beneficiary confirmations)?
Good governance proof would include an approved scope and budget, named responsibilities, conflicts register, documented procurement and approvals, project ledger and evidence, variance reporting, safeguarding and data incident reporting, participant feedback, independent review, and transparent reporting of limitations and adverse results.
MQ01 - Who is your audience: donors, local community, government, clinics, schools, families, beneficiaries?
Audiences include prospective participants and families, welfare/community organisations, qualified advisers, DWP and local public bodies, policymakers, researchers, responsible funders and the wider public. Each audience requires different information and privacy boundaries.
MQ02 - What channels do you currently use (WhatsApp, Facebook, TikTok, radio, church announcements, community meetings)?
Current project communication is principally through PHC Port and the project lead's professional network. Future channels may include direct partner outreach, LinkedIn, community meetings, telephone and accessible offline materials. Channel choice must follow consent and safeguarding needs, not traffic generation.
MQ03 - Do you have any assets: logo, photos, short video, testimonials, case stories?
Existing assets include the PHC identity and platform, P369 project records, the project lead's own Universal Credit journal evidence and developing definition documents. No participant testimonials or representative case studies should be claimed until properly consented and verified.
MQ04 - What is your "one sentence" message to donors?
Fund an independent pilot that turns otherwise fragmented benefit-system experience into maintained evidence for participant understanding, public accountability and practical service learning—without buying control of the findings.
MQ05 - What is your "one sentence" message to beneficiaries?
P369 can help you build a clearer record of what happened, what you tried, what blocked progress and what should happen next; participation is voluntary, and it does not replace official action or specialist advice.
MQ06 - What questions do people ask most often about your project (and what answers do you give)?
Expected questions include: Is this part of DWP? Will it affect my claim? Is it benefits advice? Who sees my information? Can I withdraw? Will my case be made public? Who funds it? Can a funder or DWP change the findings? These require approved plain-language answers before recruitment.
MQ07 - Do you have a list of contacts (supporters / organisations)? How many?
A verified P369 stakeholder/contact register has not yet been reported. Personal networks and prospective contacts should not be counted as project supporters without their agreement.
MQ08 - What partnerships would unlock growth fastest (hospital, police, school, local government, NGO)?
The most important early partnerships are a trusted community or welfare host, qualified welfare-rights referral support, competent safeguarding oversight and an independent evaluation/advisory relationship. A funder alone does not make the pilot deliverable.
MQ09 - What events could you run quarterly (awareness day, clinic day, school session, community meeting)?
Quarterly activity should follow pilot need rather than create promotional theatre. Useful options may include an evidence-review forum, participant-informed learning session, host/referral workshop or public right-of-reply discussion, subject to consent and safety.
MQ10 - What proof would be easiest for you to publish monthly (numbers helped, photos of deliveries, short story, receipts summary)?
The safest monthly proof is an anonymised assurance summary showing participation and withdrawal, records maintained, recurring barrier categories, referrals, responses/corrections, Concern movements, adverse events, expenditure against budget, learning and unresolved limitations.